|
Post by chaoman45 on Jan 27, 2009 3:42:10 GMT -6
0.9999999...=1.0
Prove me wrong.
|
|
Net
Expert Trainer
Posts: 699
|
Post by Net on Jan 27, 2009 3:45:58 GMT -6
im not that smart but 0.9999999<1
0.9999999 is 0.0000001 less than 1 i think your just rounding up to the nearest interger 0.9999999 is a decimal and equals to 99.99999% while 1.0 is 100% in pecentages thus 99.99999% has a 0.00001% failure rate while 100%=0% failure rate
um what does mathimatlly incline? does it mean retarded at math?
|
|
|
Post by chaoman45 on Jan 27, 2009 3:57:04 GMT -6
It means that you're interested in math.
0.111...= 1/9
9 x 0.111... = 9 x 1/9 = 9x1 (or 9) / 9
0.999... = 1
|
|
Net
Expert Trainer
Posts: 699
|
Post by Net on Jan 27, 2009 3:59:50 GMT -6
what was that you just posted? i thought you wanted to prove you wrong by telling you that 1=0.999999 are not the same
|
|
|
Post by chaoman45 on Jan 27, 2009 4:03:14 GMT -6
No. I think .9999=1. People have debated over this and I was hoping somebody would prove me wrong on this. If it doesn't hold true (.9999=1) then it's a virtual impossibility to assume (10/3.33333333)=3.0 as stated.
|
|
Net
Expert Trainer
Posts: 699
|
Post by Net on Jan 27, 2009 4:05:38 GMT -6
but 1 isn't divisible by 0.9999999
|
|
|
Post by chaoman45 on Jan 27, 2009 4:11:21 GMT -6
They still represent the same real number. In a hypothetical situation, if an airplane was set to go 1° from the east side of the airport somewhere and flew around the planet about 50 times it would eventually reach Australia. Since you cannot set the destination at 0.9999999999999...°, it would still hold true that 0.999...° = 1°.
|
|
Net
Expert Trainer
Posts: 699
|
Post by Net on Jan 27, 2009 5:13:13 GMT -6
The difference ain't that big of a difference between 1 and 0.9999999 but they aren't the same number/decimal(your rounding to the nearest interger)
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 27, 2009 14:15:28 GMT -6
0.9999999...=1.0 Prove me wrong. oh i am so glad you posted theis topic chaoman. i have argued with many people (ok there was two) about this. ok firstly 1/9=0.1 (recurring) so logically 9/9 (or 1) would equal 0.9(recurring). this Logic however only works if you take 0.1(recurring) to be exactly 1/9, its not its the closest number to it, there is no exact number that is 1/9 of 1. so my argument is that 9 x 0.1(recurring) isn't 9 x 1/9 or one its 9 x 1/9 of the number that is the closest approximation to 1/9 of one. 0.1(recurring) should continue to infinity as 0.11111... but if this is true when the number hits infinity it should stop and it should stop at ...111 so 0.9(recurring) is in fact 9 infinitely small amount less than one. for those who don't know recurrng means that the number will continue to infinity.
|
|
|
Post by Gooman on Jan 27, 2009 20:31:07 GMT -6
give me a few days and i can prove that 1 is 2.
|
|
|
Post by abizarro on Jan 27, 2009 20:34:05 GMT -6
oooh that sound like a great deal of fun gooman. i can't wait to see your reasoning.
why a few days?
|
|
Net
Expert Trainer
Posts: 699
|
Post by Net on Jan 27, 2009 20:36:13 GMT -6
he is probaly using google to research (or find resons why it is so)
|
|
|
Post by Gooman on Jan 27, 2009 20:40:55 GMT -6
no, i have to ask my math teacher. he told my class, but i was in music lessons, so i missed it...
|
|
|
Post by longtimepokemonfan on Jan 27, 2009 20:41:11 GMT -6
Fractions are not directly numbers, in fact, more of a part of a whole. 9/9 is equal to one, both mathematically, and in terms of fractions. 1/9 is expressing one of nine equal parts of a single whole. Most likely this isn't really going to be understood, but my basic point is 1/9 and .1recurring are different numbers. Not radically different, 1/9 has no defined numeric decimal value, it is expressed to fit exactly between 0.1recurring and 0.1recurring with a fictional two at the end. Fractions are made to express numbers that don't exist.
i.e. 1/3, 1/6, 1/7, 1/9, 1/11, pi, Suare roots of two, three, five, et cetera...
|
|
|
Post by panda on Jan 27, 2009 20:51:52 GMT -6
this place is a horrible death bed!
|
|